Judgment :- 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.07.2012, made in W.P.No.17216 of 2012. 2. The appellant/writ petitioner is the Gas Authority of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'GAIL) a public sector undertaking established as wholly owned company of Government of India. It is stated that the GAIL is a company engaged in exploration, protection, processing, transmission, distribution of natural gas and other related activities in India. It is further stated that in order to provide adequate infrastructure for the production and easy transportation of Natural Gas and Petroleum Products throughout the country, GAIL undertook to establish connectivity pipelines and also laid LPG pipelines across the country. It is stated that the advantages of City Gas Pipelines in the city of Delhi and Mumbai without any incident of any danger to the public is an example of how safe is GAIL's pipeline that too catering to the needs of several people in those Metropolitan Cities. The Government of India, through the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas formulated various gas/Petroleum Network Grid Pipe Line Projects and the work of establishing transmission pipelines was entrusted to the appellant. In order to facilitate the same, the Parliament enacted the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Rights of Users in Land) Act, 1962 (Central Act 50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), which provides for acquisition of the rights of users in land for transportation of petroleum and other minerals. As per the scheme of the Act, wherever it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for the transport of Natural Gas from one locality to another pipelines may be laid by the Government and for that purpose, it is necessary to acquire the right of the user in such land, it may by a notification in the official Gazette declare its intention to acquire the right of the user therein. The Act provides only for acquisition of the rights of the user of the land and not for the acquisition of the land itself. The Act empowers any person authorized by the Central Government or the Corporation which proposes to lay such pipelines to enter and survey such lands, to dig or bore into the subsoil, to set out the intended line of work and to survey such land. The Act empowers any person authorized by the Central Government or the Corporation which proposes to lay such pipelines to enter and survey such lands, to dig or bore into the subsoil, to set out the intended line of work and to survey such land. If any person has any objection for acquisition of such right of usage, they are entitled to make objection to the competent authority notified under Section 3 of the Act, who shall hold an enquiry and who may by an order allow or disallow their objection. Thereafter, the competent authority shall forward to the Government the order along with the relevant records for the Government to decide as to whether the right of user of the land is to be acquired. The Central Government may on the basis of such decision make a declaration under Section 6 and the right of user in the land shall from then on vest in the Central Government or on such Corporation proposing to lay pipelines, free from all encumbrances. 3. It is stated that the Government of India brought about a project, namely, Kochi-Koottanad-Mangalore-Bangalure Pipeline Project for laying of transmission lines through the States of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The project is being executed by GAIL and by the said transmission lines, Natural Gas will be supplied and distributed to the household sectors, commercial sectors and transport sector by laying pipeline underground. It is stated that the total distance to be covered is more than 600 Kms. GAIL was accorded sanction by the Government of India to execute the said project and in order to facilitate the same in the State of Tamil Nadu, the Central Government by notification dated 04.04.2011, notified lands in the Districts of Coimbatore, Tiruppur, Erode, Namakkal, Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri and Salem. The objections were received from the land owners and from other interested persons and it is stated adjudication proceedings were conducted after due notice. The objections raised by one farmer was rejected by the competent authority and he has filed a writ petition being W.P.No.14024 of 2012, challenging the order and the said writ petition is pending. The Government of India thereafter, issued several notifications under Section 6 of the Act declaring the right of user in the lands specified in the schedule to the said notifications. The Government of India thereafter, issued several notifications under Section 6 of the Act declaring the right of user in the lands specified in the schedule to the said notifications. Pursuant to the notifications issued by the Government of India, it is stated that GAIL commenced preliminary work for execution of the project and while doing so certain land owners and farmer's association prevented the employees of GAIL from discharging their official duty and also attempted to damage the machinery and equipment, which were used for the said purpose. It is stated that despite all attempts by the officials of the GAIL and the State Government officials, they were prevented from peacefully executed the project. As the project is a time bound project, to be executing expeditiously and loss of time would increase the cost involved in the project, GAIL preferred a complaint before the Rayakottai Police Station on 16.06.2012, followed by a representation on 17.06.2012 to the respondents requesting for adequate protection to enable them to execute the project. Alleging that their complaint and their representation were not considered, they have filed the instant writ petition for direction to grant police protection. 4. The learned Single Judge held that the complaint does not show there is any offence made out against any one and it was vaguely referred to certain people and the names of persons, who were obstructing were not mentioned and therefore, the police rightly did not register any FIR, but gave only a CSR receipt. Further, it was observed that the issue is not a mere law and problem, but the real apprehension raised by thousands of farmers, who feel threatened about their future of their lands and the paltry compensation offered and the problem involved raises sociological problem which cannot be solved through police measures. The learned Single Judge held the State being responsible for the welfare of thepeople has to take into account the apprehensions raised by the farmers and must make them to agree for a reasonable solution. When the first respondent having constituted high power committee and they are in touch with the District Collectors who are the field officers, this court cannot give any parallel direction to the Superintendents of Police to do certain things which will throw spanner in the works undertaken by the State Government. When the first respondent having constituted high power committee and they are in touch with the District Collectors who are the field officers, this court cannot give any parallel direction to the Superintendents of Police to do certain things which will throw spanner in the works undertaken by the State Government. Ultimately, the learned Single Judge while declining to issue any order which can obstruct by the State Government left it open to GAIL to complain to the State Government about any specific instance of obstruction in any village and it is for the State Government to consider the nature of action to be initiated in such matters. With these observations, the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 26.07.2012. Challenging the said order, the present appeal has been filed. 5. Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that by virtue of the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act, the right of usage of the land, which is subject matter of the notification has vested in the appellant and the respondents are duty bound to provide adequate protection for the execution of the project. It is further submitted that the appellant has not requested to use police force on the land owners, but has sought for protection of their workmen and machinery. It is further submitted that no land owners have challenged the notification dated 04.11.2011, and in terms of Article 256 of the Constitution there is a duty cast upon the State Government to ensure that the lands are made available for the purpose of laying the pipelines. The learned counsel further submitted that the land could be used for cultivation after the pipeline is laid and the apprehension of the land owners is baseless. The learned counsel referred to Section 15 of the Act and submitted that whoever obstructs any person in doing any of the acts authorised under Section 4 or 7 or 8 and whoever wilfully does any act prohibited under Section 9 shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months or with fine or with both and whoever damages any pipeline laid shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. It is further submitted that in terms of Section 16 of the Act an offence falling under sub-section (2) of Section 15 shall be deemed to be a cognizable within the meaning of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989. The learned counsel referred to the proceedings of the meeting chaired by the District Collector, Krishnagiri on 21.08.2012, where the Revenue Officials, officials of the Appellant and the land owners were present. In the said report, it is stated that the advantages of the laying cross country underground Gas Petroleum which increases the economic development of the country was deliberated threadbare in the meeting with farmers and the District Collector has appraised the farmers clearly about the fixation of enhanced compensation by the High Power Committee of the Government of Tamil Nadu based on the latest guideline value dated 04.04.2012 with 30% solatium plus 10% exgratia in addition to compensation for loss of trees, crops. The points raised by the farmers were discussed and a decision was taken in the said meeting that the appellant will start pipeline laying work from 22.08.2012 and there will be no obstruction from the farmers and they will extend full co-operation. It was further decided that in the event of any obstructions by the land owners for laying of gas pipeline, police protection will be sought. It is submitted that even after agreeing to extend full co-operation for laying the pipeline, since a few land owners objected to the same, the appellant sought for police protection. The learned counsel further submitted that only a few persons are objecting to laying of pipeline and majority of the land owners have understood the importance of the project. The learned further submitted that one group of persons hailing from other Districts have been travelling and trying to muster support from the local land owners to raise objection for laying pipeline. Therefore, it is submitted that Police protection should be given to protect the interest of the appellant's workmen and their machinery. 6. The learned further submitted that one group of persons hailing from other Districts have been travelling and trying to muster support from the local land owners to raise objection for laying pipeline. Therefore, it is submitted that Police protection should be given to protect the interest of the appellant's workmen and their machinery. 6. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents submitted that all District Collectors have conducted meeting in their respective districts wherein the land owners, the Revenue Officials and the officials of the appellant participated and separate status reports have been filed by the District Collectors of Krishnagiri, Tiruppur, Dharmapuri, Coimbatore, Erode, Namakkal and Salem and in all such reports, the District Collectors have stated that a settlement could not be arrived at and further Peace Committee meetings have to be held. The District Collectors have reported that the land owners have placed certain charter of demands and have stated that unless those demands are met, the pipeline laying work should not be commenced. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the Government is ready and willing to extend full support for the project and every endeavour has been made to amicably resolve the disputes and the prayer made by the appellant to give police protection is not appropriate and the appellant should approach the Government for appropriate relief. 7. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned Senior counsel appearing for the land owners submitted that if the conditions imposed by the appellant are to be followed, then it would result in fragmentation of agricultural lands and their right to livelihood would be affected. Further, there would be restriction on the area of cultivation and the full value of the land would be lost. Further, it is submitted that the compensation offered is grossly inadequate and if the land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the farmers have to be compensated with 100% of the guideline value and meagre compensation of 10% is grossly inadequate and the action appears to be to cheat the farmers and to grab their land, for which the veil of right of user is invoked. It is further submitted that the land owners are not opposing the gas pipeline project as a whole, on the other hand they are welcoming the project if it is implemented via alternate route and the project may be implemented along side National Highways, along side Railway Lines, beneath river bed which will not affect the land owners. The learned counsel further submitted that representation for alternate route has been given to seven District Collectors as well as the appellant and the Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and feasibility of the alternate route has not been considered. It is submitted that in Cochin, for the length of 40Kms, the pipeline has been laid on Government lands and not on private lands and similar is a situation in Karnataka. Therefore, it is submitted that when the proposal given by the appellant for alternate route is still pending and a decision is yet to be arrived at, the appellant should not be permitted to lay the pipeline to the determent of the appellant. 8. Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned Senior counsel appearing for the other land owners submitted that though it is stated that the farmers use their lands after the pipeline is laid, there is definitely restriction on how the land can be used and they cannot plant trees or construct buildings for a width of 20meters along the pipeline and if the pipeline runs through the middle of the land, the plot will be cleaved into two, making the entire land unfit for cultivation. It is further stated that a general statement has been made that the land owners attempted to damage the machinery and equipment of the appellant and the said allegation is absolutely false. The learned counsel further submitted that only if a sketch is given to each individual owner he can assess the damage which would be caused to the trees, crops, buildings, wells etc., or on his handing over the land, he would be able to assess the compensation required for the portion used by the appellant. It is further submitted that the competent authority under the Act, did not listen to the specific suggestions of the land owners that the pipeline could be taken along the National Highway or the State Highway, which would eliminate use of large tracts of private lands for laying the pipeline. It is further submitted that the competent authority under the Act, did not listen to the specific suggestions of the land owners that the pipeline could be taken along the National Highway or the State Highway, which would eliminate use of large tracts of private lands for laying the pipeline. It is further submitted that the land owners have filed writ petitions being W.P.Nos.23536, 23537, 23550 to 23553 of 2012, challenging the notification issued by the Government raising several grounds. Therefore, it is submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference. 9. In reply Mr.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant that each land owner has been given a sketch and as regards the alignment of the pipeline, the experts have done thorough study and change of alignment or the route is not feasible. It is stated that in Cochin only a distance of 12 Kms the pipeline has been taken along the side of the Highway and not the entire length. It is further submitted that the appellant has agreed to pay the compensation as per guideline line fixed during April 2012 together with solatium and exgratia payment as well as compensation for trees and crops. It is submitted that project being in public interest, the land owners should not object to the same and the State Government should take all possible steps to ensure that the project is completed at the earliest, though it has been delayed on account of the objections raised by few persons. 10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and given our anxious consideration to the facts and all issues raised by the parties. 11. There can be no denying the fact that the project to be implemented by the appellant would subserve public interest. We have noticed that the land owners are not opposing to the laying of pipeline. The grievance appears to be on the alignment. The land owners would state that they have not been given the sketch of the proposed alignment of the pipeline, as a result of which they were unable to place their objections before the competent authority. We have noticed that the land owners are not opposing to the laying of pipeline. The grievance appears to be on the alignment. The land owners would state that they have not been given the sketch of the proposed alignment of the pipeline, as a result of which they were unable to place their objections before the competent authority. They would further state that they have given proposals in each Districts for alternative route suggesting that the pipeline could be taken alongside the National Highway or State Highway or beneath river bed The grievance is that such suggestions have not been considered and no decision either accepting or rejecting the same has been communicated to them. Yet steps have been taken by the appellant to lay the pipeline. As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has not made out a specific case for the purpose of registering a crime and to provide police protection. The issue is a very delicate matter, since the interest of the farmers/land owners cannot be ignored. It may be true, if the pipeline passes through the centre of a fertile agricultural land or grove, it would definitely have a serious impact on the farmer's right to use the land to its fullest capacity. Therefore, the appellant has to address these issues before exercising their "right of user" which is stated to have been vested in them, pursuant to the notifications issued under the Act. Therefore, the solution would not be to afford police protection, but could be arrived at by making genuine attempts with deliberations and discussions at higher levels. 12. In the counter affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Industries Department, It has been stated that the State Government is fully aware of the fact that the project is of National importance and the District Collectors were instructed to talk to the affected parties and advice them about the benefits of the project to the State Government and also to take appropriate action to ensure law and order in the districts and facilitate laying of the gas pipeline so as to ensure completion of the project within the scheduled time. It is further stated that the issues relating to the project including right of user, matters were taken up by the State Government with the District Collector and officials of the Districts on 17.08.2002, through video conference and instructions have been given to talk to the land owners/farmers and facilitate the laying of the gas pipeline in an amicably way. It has been further stated that it is well open to the appellant to complain to the State Government about any specific instance of obstruction in any village and they can approach the State Government for appropriate relief. 13. In the light of the stand taken by the State Government and after going through the facts of this case, we are of the definite view that the learned Single Judge was perfectly right in declining to grant the relief sought for by the appellant. Therefore, the order passed in the writ petition calls for no interference. However a workable solution has to be arrived at so as to complete the project which is of national importance and in public interest, for which purpose, we issue the following directions:- (i) The Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu along with their officials shall convene a meeting for each of the seven districts. In such meeting the District Collector, the officials of the appellant and the land owners shall be invited for discussion and the procedure normally adopted in public hearing could be followed and the grievances expressed by the land owners and the appellant could be placed without any reservations and thereafter, the State Government shall take a decision to facilitate the laying of gas pipeline. (ii) It is needless to state that the land owners should also bear in mind that the project is of national importance and in public interest and therefore, they should endeavour to make the project successful, so that it would be completed within the scheduled time. (iii) The suggestions given by the land owners proposing an alternate route may be discussed in such meetings. The proposed alignment of the pipeline for each districts shall be prominently displayed in the meeting, if any land owner makes a request for explanation with special reference to his land, the same shall be done by the appellant for which purpose, the District Revenue Officials shall extend full co-operation. The proposed alignment of the pipeline for each districts shall be prominently displayed in the meeting, if any land owner makes a request for explanation with special reference to his land, the same shall be done by the appellant for which purpose, the District Revenue Officials shall extend full co-operation. (iv) We hope and trust that if such a meeting/hearing is given for each of the Districts separately, an amicable solution would be arrived to pave way for the smooth implementation of the project. 14. With the above directions, the writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.